Load the RAWs into IRIS (it recognizes 5D2 files completely and masks off their masking area so you need to use a black frame from the 5D2). For the 5D3 select a big chunk of the left masking area (the top masking area appears to have some data or something stored in it and won't work) and hit the statistics option. You find that the avg value is 2048 and that is the black level. You then see a standard deviation of about 5.95 or so (I was actually a little generous if anything since a patch higher up that I sampled said 6.0). Then you draw a box around the blown highlights in one of the IR ISO 100 images and notice that the raw saturation level at ISO 100 is 15283.

With those three numbers you do this Log[2] ((15283-2048)/5.95)) and get 11.1 stops.

For the 5D2 you find values 15760,1024,6.1 and get 11.2 stops.

So... what are you doing? Blowing the highlights and measuring, blowing the shadows and measuring, and computing the magnitude between them? If you repeat the same calcs for every 5D3 sample do you get the same thing? If you repeat for every 5D2 image do you get the same 11.2? Or are you just measuring the DR of a single image?

How do you explain the difference between your 5D2 numbers and DXO's who measured it using hardware (known lighting values and a variety ND filters to stop the light down in known intervals) and determined a maximum sensor potential DR of 11.9?

I don't have a dog in the fight, just trying to understand the calcs and whether they are repeatable and meaningful.

I've never seen banding on my files unless I've screwed up the exposure and have had to push the image.

It doesn't surprise me that dynamic range hasn't improved either. I mean, there are some drawbacks to using a CMOS sensor. Until they change the sensor type there will always be limits.They could use a CCD sensor but then they'd be limited to a max ISO of 1600, but you'd get 12 stops of range.

And once again, no I am not some Nikon fanboy. I have never owned a Nikon camera of any sort in my entire life.I've owned many Canons. That doesn't mean I need to lie and make up BS to make myself feel better about Canon.

It's kinda sad that the fanboys here are so extreme that they just smite anyone and go la-la-la-la I can't hear you rather than look at facts. But go ahead, be my guest if you feel happier for doing it.

As a matter of principle, I never use that silly applaud/smite button, but if I did you'd get a +1 for figuring out a preliminary way to get a reading on the 5D3's dynamic range. I find that there's a lot of useful information to be gleaned from many people on this forum--too bad it has to be filtered out from a noisy minority who take personal offense to anything other than praise for Canon.

Asking about the specifics of your methodology is legitimate. Crowing about the 5D3's early sales performance is indeed irrelevant.

On another thread about the pricing of the 5D3 I made the point that the sales domination of the 5D2 over competing full frame models depended largely on its prowess as a video camera. I then noted that a number of leading videographers--including Vincent LaForet--were already on record as being unimpressed by the video features of the 5D3, and that the disappointment of this important market segment might translate to lower-than-expected sales--which in turn might lead to a fairly quick drop in price.

I was assailed immediately. Laforet, it was explained, was a nouveau riche photojournalist turned camera snob by his giddy success as a videographer. And then, having acknowleged LaForet's negative response to the camera by attempting to discredit him, my accuser turned on me and charged me with bias for saying that LaForet was unimpressed with the 5D3's specs. How many ways can you have it?

My point wasn't even about the merits of the camera; it was about the expectations of videographers and what that might do to sales. No matter. It could be construed as an indirect attack on darling 5D3 and needed to be struck down immediately.

The clear fact is that at least initially videographers are not embracing the 5d3 the way they did the 5D2--it's all over the Internet. And the equally clear fact is that Canon cameras have a number of class-leading qualities but they have a problem with dynamic range compared to Sony/Nikon. Photographers know it. On the eve of the introduction of the 5D3, when all of the talk should have been about megapixels and frame rate, etc., this forum sprouted a 5-page thread of people worrying that Canon might not have addressed the problems of dynamic range. Likewise,all the testing organizations find that Canon underperforms in this area. How are we going to explain that away? DPR and DXO rig their tests because because Sony/Nikon own a controlling interest in them?

And while nothing is definite yet, there are reasons to wonder if Canon has been able to improve the performance of the 5D3 in this area. The company would have to be deaf and blind not to know that its customers are worried about this issue. And yet we've heard a lot of talk about the improved SNR, two-stop better high-ISO performance in jpeg, as well as the multi-frame HDR feature, but not a single official claim that I can find about an actual increase in dynamic range. DR is important to my kind of photography and I am increasingly concerned that either Canon's engineers can't figure it out or that Sony holds some patents that Canon can't circumvent.

But raise the possibility that Canon has a problem in this area and you're a troll. Any questioning of Canon's perfection is construed as a personal attack. I'm thinking what's needed is a banner--24 pt bold--across the top of every page in this forum: A reminder: the latest scientific evidence confirms that there is absolutely no correlation--repeat, absolutely NO correlation--between your choice of camera equipment and the length of your phallus.

Load the RAWs into IRIS (it recognizes 5D2 files completely and masks off their masking area so you need to use a black frame from the 5D2). For the 5D3 select a big chunk of the left masking area (the top masking area appears to have some data or something stored in it and won't work) and hit the statistics option. You find that the avg value is 2048 and that is the black level. You then see a standard deviation of about 5.95 or so (I was actually a little generous if anything since a patch higher up that I sampled said 6.0). Then you draw a box around the blown highlights in one of the IR ISO 100 images and notice that the raw saturation level at ISO 100 is 15283.

With those three numbers you do this Log[2] ((15283-2048)/5.95)) and get 11.1 stops.

For the 5D2 you find values 15760,1024,6.1 and get 11.2 stops.

So... what are you doing? Blowing the highlights and measuring, blowing the shadows and measuring, and computing the magnitude between them? If you repeat the same calcs for every 5D3 sample do you get the same thing? If you repeat for every 5D2 image do you get the same 11.2? Or are you just measuring the DR of a single image?

How do you explain the difference between your 5D2 numbers and DXO's who measured it using hardware (known lighting values and a variety ND filters to stop the light down in known intervals) and determined a maximum sensor potential DR of 11.9?

The 11.9 from DxO is for their 8MP print normalized plot. Since the 5D2 and 5D3 have the same MP I didn't normalize them against each or anything else. If you normalize my 5D2 numbers then you get 3.8 normalized read noise and match DxO's 8MP normalization value 11.86 vs 11.9. Also note if you hit the screen button on their chart, non-normalized values, then they happen to list the exact same 11.2 dynamic range I listed above.

I've never seen banding on my files unless I've screwed up the exposure and have had to push the image.

It doesn't surprise me that dynamic range hasn't improved either. I mean, there are some drawbacks to using a CMOS sensor. Until they change the sensor type there will always be limits.They could use a CCD sensor but then they'd be limited to a max ISO of 1600, but you'd get 12 stops of range.

it can be improved even for CMOS, D7000/D3x/D800 demonstrate this, they use a digital CDS and column parallel on sensor ADCs; apparently there are other ways too, one person claims Canon was offered one but didn't want to bother; the exmor method may be patented

the 5D3 should have similar DR to the D800 at ISO800 and above but lower at ISO 400 and much lower at ISO100-200, this is slightly speculative but pretty likely to bear out

high iso performance may be fairly similar between the 5D3/D4/D3s/D800 with the D4 perhaps taking the crown by 1/3 to 1/2 stop (meaningless to a modest difference), this is getting much more speculative now though but not unreasonable, in some ways the higher MP count of the 5D3 and D800 may make their files in some ways have a nicer looking high iso noise than the D4 and especially D3s perhaps, again that is a bit speculative

So... what are you doing? Blowing the highlights and measuring, blowing the shadows and measuring, and computing the magnitude between them? If you repeat the same calcs for every 5D3 sample do you get the same thing? If you repeat for every 5D2 image do you get the same 11.2? Or are you just measuring the DR of a single image?

I'm not doing anything. I'm using IR's files. Thankfully they blew the highlights on some specular highlights so that is where I got the raw saturation levels from. The dark current noise I measured from the masked area of the file that was cut off from light. it seems to be around +/- .1 stops for across three quick tries on files, doing the same thing my 5D2 values happen, by chance to match DxO exactly to the tenth. different copies might vary +/-.15 or so perhaps unless you got a real weird copy

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

etto72

I see many folks in this forum deducing and assuming from pictures that are floating on the web that the DR of the new 5D mk III will be about the same of the mk IIBefore giving such a underwhelming pictures think a little..From DP ratings:5D - 9.21Ds mk III - 11.3 (5D mk II - 11.1)1D mk IV - 125D mk III... ?As you see there was a constant improvement with each sensor generation(Full frame and 1.3)the last camera generation (1D mk IV) has 12EV and considering that the new 5D (and 1DX)have the latest technology and that the pixel size of the new cameras is biggerI expect to see around 12.5-13EVThat would be awesome!CheersEttore

I see many folks in this forum deducing and assuming from pictures that are floating on the web that the DR of the new 5D mk III will be about the same of the mk IIBefore giving such a underwhelming pictures think a little..From DP ratings:5D - 9.21Ds mk III - 11.3 (5D mk II - 11.1)1D mk IV - 125D mk III... ?As you see there was a constant improvement with each sensor generation(Full frame and 1.3)the last camera generation (1D mk IV) has 12EV and considering that the new 5D (and 1DX)have the latest technology and that the pixel size of the new cameras is biggerI expect to see around 12.5-13EVThat would be awesome!CheersEttore

That would be awesome. Hope you're right. Can't help wondering why Canon would be keeping such performance a secret.

I see many folks in this forum deducing and assuming from pictures that are floating on the web that the DR of the new 5D mk III will be about the same of the mk IIBefore giving such a underwhelming pictures think a little..From DP ratings:5D - 9.21Ds mk III - 11.3 (5D mk II - 11.1)1D mk IV - 125D mk III... ?As you see there was a constant improvement with each sensor generation(Full frame and 1.3)the last camera generation (1D mk IV) has 12EV and considering that the new 5D (and 1DX)have the latest technology and that the pixel size of the new cameras is biggerI expect to see around 12.5-13EVThat would be awesome!CheersEttore

I was looking forward and expecting 12.5-13 too, but so far nobody has measured that. Five people have tried and all have gotten it to be about the same as for the 5D2. I just hope that by some miracle the IR got a really bum copy or something, not likely though. Or that the masked area is doing something different this time, not likely though either.

Also you are listed per pixel 100% view DR but if you look at normalized per same print/view DR then the 1Ds3 and 5D2 and 1D4 all have basically the same DR and there was no increase of near 11 to 12 for the 1D4, that is only because you were comparing the per pixel DR. Canon seems to have topped out in what they can do with their processes at ISO DR back with the 1Ds3 release.

I really thought that after so many years and keeping it at 22MP they would have a big break through this time. And when I saw the $500 more than the D800 for less MP then I really, really thought they would have the break through. Seems like not. I was actually horrified when I saw that first guy report the same read noise. I couldn't believe it.

Only chance left is for the 1DX. (IMO it would really suck if they held some special new fab and process and tech for the 1DX only when the 5D3 is more of a landscape cam and could arguably use the DR more than the 1DX if anything)

at high ISO it will probably go up a trace, perhaps even a modestly noticeable 1/2+ stops, compared to the 5D2 and even more compared to the 1Ds3 and the SNR does appear to be nearly 2/3 stops better and the banding less so there are some improvements, but for 3.5 years and same MP and $500 more I thought they'd have a bit more, still it should be close to the best at high iso

« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 12:57:48 AM by LetTheRightLensIn »

Logged

parsek

If the findings of these people [who have done their own DR tests] become verified truth, it is very disappointing performance by Canon. DR is the holy grail at this point in high performance digital imaging IMHO. Low light ISO performance being it´s younger brother.

It is a sad state of affairs when presented with direct evidence people just stick their head in the hand and shoot the messenger if the results don't mesh with their hopes, internal belief system, what have you. And not just in this forum.

What direct evidence, man?? You've been regurgitating hearsay, speculation, unverifiable test images with no EXIF data, arguments from DPR between individuals who seem to have long reputations as promoting hearsay and speculation, oh, and a few secretive "tests" that ->you<- have done yourself using some kind of mysterious and questionable method to "measure" DR from a few random sample images (WOEFULLY INADEQUATE to the task of properly measuring DR) on the net...the very vast majority of which have been taken with PRE-PRODUCTION 5D III's.

I don't really know what your goal is here, but your just rumormongering and spreading hearsay. Nothing you have provided thus far is verifiably factual, and there don't even exist any sample images on the net yet that could even be remotely considered adequate to properly "measure" dynamic range, let along start a little jihad against the 5D III and how its a step back from the 5D II in terms of noise and DR. (Something which I think most of us who have looked at 5D III sample images can disagree with without even the need to do any sketchy testing...because so far the sample images have been nothing short of fantastic and very competitive (from an IQ perspective...subject wise, I often wonder who screwed Canon's head on, and why they screwed it on backwards.))

Its time to just wait for the darn thing to actually hit the streets, and let the institutions who have solid reputations for accurately measuring these things do their job. Until then, its ALL JUST SPECULATION!

It is a sad state of affairs when presented with direct evidence people just stick their head in the hand and shoot the messenger if the results don't mesh with their hopes, internal belief system, what have you. And not just in this forum.

What direct evidence, man?? You've been regurgitating hearsay, speculation, unverifiable test images with no EXIF data, arguments from DPR between individuals who seem to have long reputations as promoting hearsay and speculation, oh, and a few secretive "tests" that ->you<- have done yourself using some kind of mysterious and questionable method to "measure" DR from a few random sample images (WOEFULLY INADEQUATE to the task of properly measuring DR) on the net...the very vast majority of which have been taken with PRE-PRODUCTION 5D III's.

I don't really know what your goal is here, but your just rumormongering and spreading hearsay. Nothing you have provided thus far is verifiably factual, and there don't even exist any sample images on the net yet that could even be remotely considered adequate to properly "measure" dynamic range, let along start a little jihad against the 5D III and how its a step back from the 5D II in terms of noise and DR.

Its time to just wait for the darn thing to actually hit the streets, and let the institutions who have solid reputations for accurately measuring these things do their job. Until then, its ALL JUST SPECULATION!

I listed my entire procedure in detail! I wasted like ten minutes typing it out. It's the same thing DxO does. A lead software developer for a RAW converter has done the same test and found the same thing. I gave you the link. Another guy has done the same thing and gotten the same results. I'm pretty sure I put that link in this thread too. PhDs, engineers, lead software developers, detailed procedure. What more do you want?

All you need to measure DR is an area of an image that is totally blown out and an area that is 100% black dark current and the IR files gives us that. Unless IR got a really, really bum copy or they suddenly started making the left mask area perform differently and I hope one or the other is the case but I doubt it, this is pretty much solid results.

My 'woefully inadequate' procedure only happened to match the DxO ISO 100 results for ISO 100 to the tenth of a stop (easily within any sample to sample variation, different parts of even a given sensor can easily be +/- 0.1 difference alone).

Smite away, have fun, whatever.

I hope we are wrong and that the pre-pro unit they got stinks or that they messed with the masking area. Every time we hoped that in the past it didn't turn out to be the case, but I hope this time it will. It's not at all likely. But if I (we) are wrong I'll be jumping for joy.

At least the high ISO should be some degree of better even if not the low.

It is a sad state of affairs when presented with direct evidence people just stick their head in the hand and shoot the messenger if the results don't mesh with their hopes, internal belief system, what have you. And not just in this forum.

What direct evidence, man?? You've been regurgitating hearsay, speculation, unverifiable test images with no EXIF data, arguments from DPR between individuals who seem to have long reputations as promoting hearsay and speculation, oh, and a few secretive "tests" that ->you<- have done yourself using some kind of mysterious and questionable method to "measure" DR from a few random sample images (WOEFULLY INADEQUATE to the task of properly measuring DR) on the net...the very vast majority of which have been taken with PRE-PRODUCTION 5D III's.

I don't really know what your goal is here, but your just rumormongering and spreading hearsay. Nothing you have provided thus far is verifiably factual, and there don't even exist any sample images on the net yet that could even be remotely considered adequate to properly "measure" dynamic range, let along start a little jihad against the 5D III and how its a step back from the 5D II in terms of noise and DR.

Its time to just wait for the darn thing to actually hit the streets, and let the institutions who have solid reputations for accurately measuring these things do their job. Until then, its ALL JUST SPECULATION!

Dude I freaking listed my entire procedure in detail! I wasted like ten minutes typing it out. It's the same thing DxO does. A lead software developer for a RAW converter has done the same test and found the same thing. I gave you the link. An engineer has done the same thign and gotten the same results. I'm pretty sure I put that link in this thread too. What more do what me to provide?

All you need to measure DR is an area of an image that is totally blown out and an area that is 100% black dark current and the IR files gives us that.

Done with you, smite away, have fun, whatever.

Does your method involved the use of a specialized test device designed just for the purpose of testing DR, that is finely calibrated to produce consistent test images containing tonal swatches of exact known intensities, lit by a very specific kind of light bulb that is capable of emitting a very specific amount of light, with a very specific color balance, at a very specific intensity? Do you take dozens of sample shots of said test device, evaluate each individual shot to produce very accurate measurements into a data sample set? Do you aggregate the measurements of that data sample set to produce a scientifically accurate mean, standard deviation, ratios, etc.? Do you have your results verified by multiple parties for accuracy? Is your final conclusion based on those verified results? Are all of your test cases for every brand of equipment you test subjected to the EXACT SAME TEST, done in the EXACT SAME WAY, to minimize deviation between the results of various brands, models, and even samples of specific equipment? Do you have a reputation as someone who does these things...a track record of verifiable accuracy?

DXO doesn't just take a sample image and perform some little procedure on it to come up with the dynamic range numbers they publish. Claiming that your results are as accurate as theirs comes with a certain responsibility, and I'm sorry...but you repeatedly claiming that your as accurate and reliable as DXO, well its actually rather sad at this point. As it stands, all we really have at this point is your personal word...but someones word only has meaning to those who have reason to trust it.

You've done some "fiddling", and you have your personal conclusions. As far as I can tell, this supposed "engineer" your a fan of has also done some "fiddling", and also has his own personal conclusions. Speculation and hearsay, but personal conclusions nevertheless. You've been repeating your conclusions all over this forum for a few days now. Its certainly your prerogative to continue, but personally, I would stop comparing my own little home-grown, ad-hoc DR evaluation method to the precision testing performed by DXO...save yourself a little face.

We all know what your opinion is, and I think most of us are content to admire the IQ of the images we've seen so far as being a a competitive improvement over prior Canon cameras, comparable to the competition at the very least...and wait for reputable institutions to provide accurate details about DR, ISO, noise, color fidelity, etc. once these cameras actually hit store shelves.

Somehow i doubt you would be so sensitive about its methodology and findings if LetTheRightLensIn's thread title was "Zomg 5d3 has 14DR u guys!"

In my case i tend to believe him; his approach -with the amount of data we have so far- seems reasonable, his results fits other people tests, and since Canon itself hasnt bothered to announce something about low iso performance, tends to point in the direction LetTheRightLensIn is.